Worth noting that the Chinese ambassador also called it the Malvinas throughout, not the Falklands.
China recently renamed Okinawa to Ryukyu in its internal nomenclature and Xi was reported specifically talking about Ryukyu's historical connections with China.
Seems like we're entering the "two can play at that game" stage of Chinese diplomacy.
They're really going through every country and finding an island to support the independence of lol
China backing the independence of whatever the inhabitants of North Sentinel Island call themselves
the most cursed independence movement to support would be pitcairn who only want to leave because they want to abolish age of consent laws
Fierce Politbureau debates about whether to support Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, or American Samoan independence.
After hours of back and forth, Xi breaks his silence and says "why not all of them?"
And then everyone clapped.
Not just western occupation but also Japanese occupation. Ryukyuans are the indigenous ethnic group, like the Ainu in what is currently called Hokkaido.
Sure. Although at this point its very difficult to draw any kind of straight line between native Ainu/Ryukyuans and migrant Japanese given how many have dual parentage.
That's sorta how it always goes
But I have met a couple of ryukyuans and they really are a lot different, it's a related language not a "dialect" as many Yamato people like to refer to it as. And they look very different- certain parts of Hawaii have a lot of Okinawan people, and when I see current Okinawa residents, they look to me like they're from Hilo Hawaii.
Hell even Ryukyu is a weird word, it's the japanized pronunciation of Ruuchuu or Luchu
As a history professor once told me, the difference between a "dialect" and a "language" is a standing army.
But yeah the Okinawans have always gotten the shaft from the mainland Japanese government, the fact that they have to play host to nearly all of the occupying American military forces is one part of that. We're thankfully past the days when their language and religion were illegal but the legacy of fascist Japan's policies lives on.
That's true of many indigenous people. For example, the Maori people of New Zealand almost all have some degree of intermixing with European settlers, to the point where some scientists believe that there are no longer any genetically "pure" Maori (if such a term ever made sense) left today.
However, that doesn't stop Maori people from having their own culture, language, and struggle for liberation against colonialism.
Not disagreeing with you here at all, just wanting to add that according to Okinawa Prefecture, about 8% of Okinawa's land area is occupied by US bases, including about 14% of the total area of the main inhabited island.
70% of Japanese land set aside for American bases is in Okinawa.
China recently renamed Okinawa to Ryukyu in its internal nomenclature and Xi was reported specifically talking about Ryukyu's historical connections with China.
Xi needs to start supporting Irish independence and start arming the resistance.
We didn't even get the bell riots yet, does Irish reunification come before or after?
Oh yeah, and apparently the Neo-Trotskyites will come to power in France. Can't wait to see what their government newspaper will be like.
That's unknown, because they never mentioned anything more specific than 2024 for Irish Unification. But the Bell Riots take place in September 2024 according to Memory Alpha.
One hell of a year.
Just got off the phone with President Xi; dozens of new Chengdu J-20s are being delivered to Dublin as we speak
well if he wants them to go to Irish partisans they should have been sent to Belfast
this but unironically
oh, this is a star trek nerd thing
i still support it
They should have done this with hawaii, its a much more legitimate case
Hawaii is a major US naval base that would have been a far more agressive move
Not a huge fan of this. I know why they're doing this but it sucks for the people living on the Falkland Islands being used as pawns in a larger geopolitical game.
You can't simultaneously support British balkanization and think the UK should have an imperialist outpost in South America lmao. There's a reason why the Global South as a whole supports Argentina's claims to the Malvinas no matter how many times Anglos, including the ones here, cry about "the Falklanders' sovereignty." How very convenient these Falklanders aren't asking to be their own sovereign country but part of the UK where the UK has access to its oil and territorial waters. They couldn't even ask to be a Commonwealth state like Jamaica. At least Taiwanese, Uighur, and Tibetan separatists have the decency to pretend their respective republics would be an independent country and not just some US proxy state when the Falklanders couldn't even do that.
How very convenient these Falklanders aren't asking to be their own sovereign country but part of the UK
This really hits the nail in the head: if the issue here is "sovereignty" then shouldn't they reject both Argentina AND the UK?
It's 4000 shepherds on a rock, you understand that autarky has consequences right
A third of the population works for the British gov
Characterizing the population as all shepherds is absurd
Yeah? And? meaningless info?
The largest employment sector on the Islands is the Falkland Islands Government – accounting for 28% of all employment.
you click that link and then click another link to get an awful article that is like a 10000ft "info"graphic scroll and this is all it says about it. 28% are employed by the Falkland Islands Government, which is not "the British government" unless you want to just not distinguish between them for rhetoric.
Without any more information, like, so what? That could mean literally anything depending on the capacity of the local government and services it offers. But okay I guess the Materialist Take here is 28% of the population (the overwhelming majority of which is making poverty wages) are like British Home Office (that's the british state dept right? I don't fucking know) agents doing an espionage on Argentina
Well, there's also the 1000+ British troops stationed at the military base there.
I didn't make any claim about what should or shouldn't be done with the island. I'd said your characterization of the island's population was bad. It was wrong in a way that was misleading. I don't think you were doing that intentionally, but its not an island of shepherds.
Do you have a source for this?
the overwhelming majority of which is making poverty wages)
I can see the Falkland gov's website states:
Amongst 15-64 year olds, the labour force participation rate is 95%, which is amongst the highest in the world, compared to International Labour Organization (ILO) data. The reported average annual income for working-age people in employment was £29,400 (£30,600 in Stanley, £25,600 in Camp). The per capita average income for all individuals aged 16 years and over (working and non-working) is £26,700 (£27,300 in Stanley, £23,500 in Camp). The average annual household income in 2021 was reported to be £53,100 (£56,800 in Stanley, £47,000 in Camp); 22% higher than in 2016, in absolute terms.
Those incomes don't sound like "poverty wages," though I'm sure cost of living is higher in some ways on an island. Though the accommodation and utilities seem pretty affordable compared to those mean incomes. In fact, its more affordable than most areas in the mid-atlantic US, but that probably says more about
Well, there's also the 1000+ British troops stationed at the military base there
pretty sure those aren't "residents" unless you're attempting to make your own characterization of the island's population
Do you have a source for this?
literally your own link...
click link
click the hyper link on "one third of the population" working for the government
Pay is low by UK standards - the average income is £20,100, compared to £26,500 for UK full-time workers. It also varies, depending on where people live.
The census points out wide inequality of earnings too:
***almost half of all residents (49.2%) report an annual income of less than £15,000 (with almost 12% reporting income of less than £5000). ***Most retirees report incomes of less than £15,000 per annum, however fully two thirds of all persons reporting incomes of less than £15,000 per annum also report that they are employed
so ya idk man
I'm not going to be on the side of Argentina forcibly deporting people who live there
The facts you cite are bad, but it's also not what you claimed. Less than 50% of a segment of the island's population is not an "overwhelming majority" of the island making "poverty wages" like you claimed.
Also, I never argued for Argentina deporting people. I don't see what bearing the income of the population would have not deporting or deporting them.
At this point, you've both misrepresented what the source says and put words in my mouth I never said or even implied. You've done this repeatedly.
I saw this a lot in this thread today.
Where is Argentina supporting deportation of the Falklaners/Malvinenses? What is your source? The Sun?
This is 2023, not 1982.
PD: Cuba supports Argentina. Always the same map supports Argentina https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Countries_that_support_Argentina%27s_claim_of_sovereignty_over_the_Falkland_Islands,_South_Georgia,_and_South_Sandwich_islands.png. This should ring you a bell or two.
the median income on the falkland isles is double that of England. Most people in England are broke as shit but still
also the UK equivalent of the state dept is the foreign office
Literally following the link guy posted above indicates fully half of Falkland islanders make $19k or less per year, literally the link dude gave me, but you know what it doesn't even matter because i still don't support Argentina deporting them
https://www.falklands.gov.fk/policy/2021-census/census
Amongst 15-64 year olds, the labour force participation rate is 95%, which is amongst the highest in the world, compared to International Labour Organization (ILO) data. The reported average annual income for working-age people in employment was £29,400 (£30,600 in Stanley, £25,600 in Camp). The per capita average income for all individuals aged 16 years and over (working and non-working) is £26,700 (£27,300 in Stanley, £23,500 in Camp).
The average annual household income in 2021 was reported to be £53,100 (£56,800 in Stanley, £47,000 in Camp); 22% higher than in 2016, in absolute terms.
it was the average annual household income I was thinking about although I did overestimate the degree to which it was higher
It's 4000 shepherds on a rock
It's "4000 shepherds on a rock" who give the United Kingdom territory in South America, if it was "just 4000 shepherds" they would be fine without the UK's military presence in the region.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm
if it was "just 4000 shepherds" they would be fine without the UK's military presence in the region
Right, Argentina never invaded it before and started displacing the people who live there. That definitely did not happen.
Thank you for this take! This thread is full of imperialist spooks.
Brainwashing goes deep for some of our comrades in the central core.
I waited a whole day to open this thread and thought with over 300 comments it'd be a bunch of
But uhhhhhh... Damn lol
That's fair. I have no argument to that.
Ultimately this is why I flip flop on it. In terms of popular support though people will always side with "What do the people living there want?" and this is what makes it a mess.
I think part of the reason support for being part of Britain is so high is the implicit threat that without British protection then Argentina would take the island and they'd be shit out of luck, potentially even kicked out. Taiwanese separatists are similarly reliant on American protection and the majority of Taiwan wants to "maintain the status quo" because they know what it means if the status quo changes. Similar story there in my opinion.
With all that said, Britain losing more would be good. If the islanders can have their security and existing laws guaranteed then changing hands of the island is probably fine.
There's so many things that the UK (and Argentina) could've done if they actually cared about the people living in the Falkland Islands/Malvinas instead of using them as geopolitical pawns. Like, if we must insist that the Malvinas get labeled "Falkland Islands (UK)" on maps:
-
The UK could de jure or de facto cede territorial waters to Argentina.
-
The UK could demilitarize the island.
-
The UK could grant Argentina fishing and drilling rights on the islands.
-
The UK could offer to pay a lease for the islands.
-
The UK could buy the islands from Argentina.
-
The UK could offer a trade agreement favorable to Argentina for the islands.
-
The UK could have a similar arrangement like the PRC and Portugal regarding Macau where the island belongs to the UK but is administered by Argentina (or vice versa).
Nobody on the islands has to get deported to the UK and both countries can save face. But the UK had absolutely no intentions for diplomacy.
- Why, fair is fair?
- I wonder why they had to militarize it.
- Argentina argues those rights aren't the UK's to grant, and it will prosecute companies bidding for rights.
- Argentina has no de jure or de facto claim or ownership to the islands.
- Argentina has no de jure or de facto claim or ownership to the islands.
- Argentina has no de jure or de facto claim or ownership to the islands.
- The people living there have no interest in being administered by Argentina.
Last time the Argentinians invaded, they immediately started rounding up people to be deported.
-
When that translates to a UK and by extension US military outpost just of the shores of LA and when the people sustains themselves in large part BY being a military outpost of the US and UK then yeah there is insidiousness and convenience from and for imperialist geopolitical entities that impact the lives of billions regardless of the people there "wanting to be british". They can be as british as they want if they can exist without UK military basis and the royal Navy setting shop there
"imperialist outpost"
Literally just people living there, who are entitled to the same international legal considerations.
There people living in Taiwan. Should we protect and cherish their right to riddle their island with US bases if they want to?
I do kind of think Taiwan is basically a settled issue. There was a war 70 years ago and it resulted in this split. Yes the people there would be better off if the PRC had control of the island but no one would be better off if they started fighting back up again. It isn't a pressing issue though
China has a legal and moral claim on Taiwan but making an issue of it would just be bad for everyone involved
I would support an indigenous lead independent Taiwan if that was what the indigenous people of Taiwan wanted. I'm not interested in what the Han majority of the country wants though.
Though its important to remind that there's a difference here in that China at least has a claim to the island in this case, Argentina has none to the Falklands.
And a military base! (Which is kinda necessary seeing as Argentina invaded in the past and those people would like to continue just living there)
Inside you are two wolves
One of them wants to post, "Sink England into the sea lmao unlimited genocide on the first world"
The other is deeply concerned about defending British territorial claims in South America
You are a Hexbear poster
Don't Argentina's claims basically come from it being part of the same Spanish colony? Cause idk that doesn't sound very de-colonialist to me.
but like, on serious note, this is probably just China doing the whole 'East Turkestan is a real country' shit but in reverse.
this is probably just China doing the whole 'East Turkestan is a real country' shit but in reverse.
I think it's exactly this. I get it, although I don't think it'll be particularly useful to anyone.
You could also use that argument to claim any other island belongs to the nearby landmass. By that logic Florida has a claim on Cuba
Cuba's not right there. It's way over somewhere. Falklands are right there.
UK is waaaaay the fuck over there. Not even here. They're too far there to be here and thus lay no claim.
I don't know about this take I think which country the people that live there want to be part of is by far the better metric. Ireland is right by Great Britain but they clearly don't want to be in the UK
Defence of the islands is provided by the United Kingdom.[85] A British military garrison is stationed on the islands, and the Falkland Islands government funds an additional platoon to company-sized light infantry Falkland Islands Defence Force.[86] The Falklands claim an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) extending 200 nmi (370 km) from its coastal baselines, based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; this zone overlaps with the EEZ of Argentina.[87]
this is what you're defending lol (not trying to throw shade just saying)
a fascist military junta tried to seize the islands against the wishes of 99% of the inhabitants
this is what you're defending lol (not throwing shade just saying)
Well the fascists are gone but the British remain. Time to get that territory under Argentinian control.
pursuing an imperial spanish claim to own the inhabitants of a pointless little island chain
Don't pretend that Argentina is still the Spanish Empire. They're an actual local government. And it's not a "pointless" island chain. Britain is literally drilling for oil and gas there right now.
Totally innocent definitely-not-imperialism: https://rockhopperexploration.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Rockhopper-Annual-Report-2022-WEB-FINAL.pdf
They're just islanders guys, pay no attention to the British navy ships and oil drilling!
i'm not lmao
the argentinian claim is inherited from the spanish colonial government
yes it's an overseas territory. As the place has been invaded it's not that shocking there is a garrison there
It's claiming the standard EEZ as per the UN law so what
Northern Ireland is right there. It belongs to Ireland which is also right there. The UK isn't here and is over there across the channel. My here-there paradigm to nationalism wins again.
No northern Ireland is part of Ireland because of the shared cultural history. It doesn't make any sense at all to do nationalism by proximity as borders between countries are very requently next to each other
You're lucky you're over there and not here right now. How dare you.
I don't know what that has to do with anything. You should also mention Ireland's distance to the UK as if I care.
While not perfect. "Fuck them guys" is a pretty good reason for a bit.
Tbh, I never really got why some leftists get involved this inter-imperialist dispute. As far as I'm concerned, it was just an anti-communist military junta's regime picking a fight with the not-quite-irrelevant-yet Anglos over some century-old colonial claim on some tiny island in order to legitimize itself, and then getting bodied.
As for this in particular, there are plenty of other Limey-occupied colonies for China to choose from in order to make its point (N. Ireland, or in the Caribbean if you don't want to be too spicy).
also it's an island consisting of less than 3000 people who overwhelmingly voted to remain a british overseas territory.
There are no native falkanese. The islands were empty when they were settled.
A colony is a settlement, it doesn't mean they had to murder people to get it.
Its unfortunate that the term colony can be used both to describe people settling an uninhabited place and murdering an indigenous population to take it. Thats true.
Unfortunately for you and your bad argument, they are materially different even if you can use the same words to describe them.
Its unfortunate that the term colony can be used both to describe people settling an uninhabited place and murdering an indigenous population to take it
No, sheep are settler-colonials that stole the land from penguins.
Map of countries that support Argentina's claims in the South Atlantic
Show
Ukraine and Russia agree
India and Pakistan agree
Did we just find out the secret to world peace
It would be if France were a part of this coalition, but they have unfortunately been tamed by the perfidious Anglo.
And, for some reason, some people here align themselves with THE historic imperialist NATO member. They don't see the bigger picture of having a potential NATO base that has access (for delivering "freedom", in the near future) to the south of Latin America...
Not quite sure how we don't have an :its-the-same-map: emoji tbh
DPRK, Laos, Iran are anti-imperialist countries (and arguably South Africa) which do not. There are Euro imperialist countries which do. This isn't totally clear cut.
Even if it were, that many countries in the Global South rhetorically support a position does not automatically make it correct, even if that is often a useful heuristic. NAFOids post maps of Global South countries which voted in the UN to condemn the Russian invasion of Russia. So what?
Falklands apparently voted remain during Brexit. Take that as you will.
As far as I know it's almost entirely inhabited by British people who want to stay British. I don't believe it was inhabited before their ancestors arrived, either.
The first settlement seems to be 1764 with a French naval base, settled by many French Canadien refugees of the Great Expulsion. 1765 Britain claims the islands and plans to settle on Saunders Island not knowing of the French base. 1766 the settlement happens and the French sell the base to Spain, that base is Port Louis.
It sorta goes on like this1769: British and Spanish ships encounter one another whilst surveying the island. Each accuse the other of having no lawful reason for being in the islands.
1770: Falkland Crisis: Five Spanish ships arrive at Port Egmont with over 1400 troops under the command of General Madariaga. The British are forced to abandon Port Egmont and threaten war.
1776 after the islands are abandoned by England during the American revolution Spain makes them part of Rio de la Plata which is Argentina hence the modern claim.
1790: Nootka Convention. Britain conceded Spanish sovereignty over all Spain's traditional territories in the Americas. Whether or not the islands were included is disputed.
Goes back and forth with the newly formed United Provinces of South America (Argentina) and Britain. Then things get tense in the 1830s and by 1833 Britain re-secures them. Permanent settlement is essentially all British. The Arana-Southern Treaty establishes the status quo and hurts latter Argentine claims. By 1840 it is pretty indisputably British in population and governance with some remaining gauchos
The 1851 Falklands Census recorded 20 men as 'Gaucho' by profession, mostly of 'South American' nationality, with 8 of them having wives and young children
So yeah no indigenous population, by the time it had 100 or so people living most are british with some Spanish people who varied in nationality. Once native born people were born they would soundly be members of the crown colony. The French have as much a claim as Argentina honestly if we are going by pure "who settled there first"
If it was, I doubt they got better treatment than the Lucayan of Guanahani.
Either way, I'm not sure that their demand to stay British matters, given the terminal state of the British Empire.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands still controls part of the Antilles, I don't see the Falklands being lost anytime soon. Unless Argentina forcibly removes the population there is nothing about the British Empire's collapse that would get rid of them
On the one hand, anything that makes
mad is cool and funny, but why pick literally the only place they settled fair and square?how is it fair and square they literally fought a war over it, to prevent argentina from getting to use it
Argintina literally had a US installed fascist government that was torturing people for being socialists at the time of the Falklands war. Losing the Falklands war was one of the main things that led to the collapse of said government
That it's literally a foreign government's outpost on an island directly off the coast of Argentina, which Argentina could benefit from (and Argentina isn't as rich as Britain).
What claim do a bunch of British people who get their British people food shipped half way around the world have? They don't even import food from Argentina as far as I know.
Apparently they even has a ship they sail around there. Woo hoo massively polluting military industrial complex!
it's been a british outpost since before argentina was even a country
it's just a spanish imperial claim inherited by a colony, pursued by the colonizersIt literally has nothing to do with that. It's land off the coast of Argentina. They should be allowed to use it and not have British oil drilling and navy ships patrolling around it.
How long before the US decides to coup Argentina and sets up some spy base or black site on the islands, if they don't have one already?
How long before the US decides to coup Argentina and sets up some spy base or black site on the islands, if they don't have one already?
and how would that be affected by the brits owning it?
as a communsist, the thing i care about the most is people and the people of the falklands overwhelmingly want to be part of this hell hole for some fucking reason
and given that the islands were uninhabited before they were colonised, there is no justification for suddnly making them argentinianNot like those people have any more claim to the islands than anyone else. Who cares that they were uninhabited beforehand or whatever. The here and now is that Britain is drilling for resources there.
The UK is 11th in terms of median wealth, Argentina is 119th. Should oil money off the coast of Argentina benefit Argentinians, or British people?
they have claim to the islands because they fucking live there dude
because i'm sensing a "you're just a british nationalist" coming in the immediate future, i'll just make my position clear
if the islanders decided that they would rather be argentinian, i would wholeheartedly support argentina's claim to the islandsThis. People first. Peoples right to self determination and democracy from top to bottom in society is paramount. As communists, that principle is absolute.
You're acting like the Argentinian government is gonna massacre them the second power is transferred. Probably nothing would change but Argentina would get the profit from oil and tourism.
Like Argentinians are not on average wealthy people. The British people living on those islands probably have it way better than most of the people in Argentina. It's kind of gross.
Humans don't exist to create profit for the Argentinian government.
lol idealist nonsense. Argentinians would see more wealth from owning the islands than they do now.
Idealist nonsense, says the person who wants to divide up all natural resources equally into amorphous national state boundaries regardless of the wishes of the people who live there, until all national states have equal populations, areas, and access to natural wealth?
You're literally just spewing more idealist nonsense. You know that countries are a thing that still exist right? Either Argentina gets to benefit from the islands, or Britain (lmao) does. You're saying the British should benefit because they colonized some islands hundreds of years ago and there's a couple thousand people there. If there was 1 person living in the Falklands, would that justify oil and gas drilling and a British military outpost?
Apparently poor Argentinians who could benefit from social program funding don't matter, but white British people living in a colonial outpost do.
people who live in a place when they have not displaced a native population do matter more than a random government who are pursuing an imperial claim from their former imperial masters yes
Or maybe (radical, I know, wow), people matter equally, and we shouldn't forcibly deport or integrate them into various countries due to arbitrary vibes?
lmao are y'all trying to do a "reverse colonialism" thing? Literally the only thing that would likely change is who they pay taxes to and where they get there food from (shipped from Argentina probably instead of shipped 7,000 miles).
this is why the Nazi occupation of Jersey was good and socialist after all the island is closer to continental Europe than England and that is the only relevant factor when deciding which country an island should be in. The fact that they culturally are English and don't speak German or French as a rule is for some reason irrelevant here
Alberto Fernandez has already implemented some social policies. Countries like Venezuela use oil money to directly benefit the public. Imperial powers all have more wealth among the populations than non-imperial powers. Maybe a non-imperial power should get access to oil off their coast? It would be as easy aa nationalizing the oil there, as many countries do.
And that wealth doesn't translate into better living standards. It's almost as if capitalists will hoard resources no matte rhow much is available.
This is such obviously false coping.
Capitalist countries, famous for nationalitising resources
A bunch of capitalist countries have been nationalizing their resources.
the oil in the area is not valuable not to be extracted.
Must be why Britain has spent billions to setup extraction. This is just "Venezuelan crude isn't profitable" all over again. Imagine thinking oil isn't profitable.
No, they exist to justify the exclusive economic zone around the Falklands
This is the important distinction. Settling previously uninhabited areas is good, or at least neutral. The problem with settler colonialism is the genocide and theft, not the people living where they previously hadn’t.
You're repeating rhetoric without considering context.
You're acting like the Argentinian government is gonna massacre them the second power is transferred.
Historically, how have occupying powers dealt with local populations that overwhelmingly don't want them there?
Yeah those occupying powers like the British Empire. You're gonna act like Alberto Fernandez is gonna massacre some people living on an island lol.
A hostile local population is an obstacle to resource exploitation and capitalists will remove that obstacle one way or another.
resource extraction near some town? And they're not like colnized oppressed people they're just some probably comfortable British people. They're not in some anti-colonial struggle give me a break.
They're not colonized or oppressed because Argentina's attempt to turn them into such failed. If Argentina gained control of the Falklands then the inhabitants would become oppressed because you can't maintain a presence in a place over and against the will of the people there without doing a little oppression.
There's a point where it tips from "just some people living on an island" and becomes "Britain maintaining an imperial outpost for resource extraction".
So you're saying that sometimes it's ok to conquer people who have done nothing but exist, as a treat.
Again you're acting like a transfer of ownership from THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT to Argentina is "conquering" lmao.
How you gonna transfer ownership if the people living there don't want to transfer ownership?
edit: wait we've seen this one before, let's do some greatest hits and get hundreds of people killed again.
Literally Richard Spencer "peaceful relocation" bullshit at this point.
No one, full support for just killing Argentinian occupation soldiers until they go home.
Not like those people have any more claim to the islands than anyone else.
There is no reason whatsoever to override self determination because There were no indigenous people there when it was settled. So the people who live there come first.
"self determination" of a bunch of white people living under the rule of the extremely present (navy ships and military planes) British government.
Self determination of the people living there, who's ancestors took it from noone. The rest is jargon.
It's on the side of most of the world's countries, who probably don't appreciate foreign British territories. Oh no no encroaxhing on British-claimed land!
well as they were born there and have the only sensible claim of being native to the island
Not like those people have any more claim to the islands than anyone else. Who cares that they were uninhabited beforehand or whatever.
I would absolutely say the first group of people to settle a previously uninhabited area have more claim than anyone else.
“Native Americans have no more claim to Ohio than anyone else” yeah except being the first people to live there
Do white people in the US have claims to be here if the area they're in was colonized by white people without indigenous people in the immediate vicinity.
There's a lot to criticize the UK for. Fairly inhabiting barren rocks without an indigenous population isn't one of them.
I mean why is this important? Ok, make it joint owned by Chile and Argentina. Better than Britain controlling it.
Chile gets the left one, Argentina gets the right one.
You're right, Argentina's shouldn't have control over an island hundreds of miles away, glad we could agree
I agree, how dare the Irish occupiers squat on the western british isles, intruding into the UK's rightful atlantic EEZ. The people that live there will be returned to rightful british rule, as that is clearly what is harmonious.
They don't even import food from Argentina as far as I know.
Do you think there's a reason you wouldn't want your food imports dependent on a hostile power
100% agree, the US’s claim to Cuba is valid and it should be a US territory.
That’s how we handle islands off the coast right? Significantly closer than the Falklands, and the US actually owned Cuba for a while!
The Caribbean is a whole chain of islands. Cuba has like 20 million people. It's an actual independent country.
The Falklands are some islands with like 3000 people plus a bunch of military crap, owned by a country 7000 miles away so they can drill for oil in the nearby waters. They literally import their food from Britain instead of just importing it from Argrntina.
lol apparently even an Israeli company os exploring oil there: https://theprint.in/world/argentina-sanctions-israeli-oil-company-over-exploration-near-falklands/928153
You're fretting over 3000 people who are only supported by the British as a human shield for resource extraction by colonial powers.
Ok keep supporting British and Israeli oil drilling off the coast of a much poorer country because 3000 white people happen to live there. Those oil companies are indigenous!!!
No I think Argentinian oil should benefit Argentinians and not the British Empire and Israel lmao.
Britain should give Argentina the Falklands because they won the world cup. It's your own game, England! it's more than fair!
Do Saint-Pierre and Miquelon next. Let's get real confusing.
No, because then I won't be able to win alcohol at the bar by betting people that you can drive to France from the US.
You can still drive to French Guiana, so not a problem.nvm there isn't a ferry anymore. :(I mean I guess, if you don’t drive off a mountain in the Darien Gap or smth
My bad, I thought there was a ferry but apparently not anymore. Whoops
Put all English people in the Falklands, then partition England between Scotland and Wales
our poor British settlers
